Science ethics: Young scientists speak (original) (raw)
Related papers
The ethics of being a scientist
In recent years there has been an increasing recognition that becoming an ethical scientist may not happen by osmosis. Teaching research ethics has therefore become an integral part of many university curricula. In the United States, the Office for Research Integrity has identified nine core areas for consideration regarding the responsible conduct of research. These are: (i) Research misconduct; (ii) Protection of human subjects; (iii) Animal use and welfare; (iv) Conflicts of interest; (v) Data management; (vi) Mentor/Trainee responsibilities; (vii) Collaborative research; (viii) Authorship and publication; and (ix) Peer review. These components are clearly most applicable to the training of postgraduate students but have relevance for undergraduates both in the preparation for a research project and also as part of their broader education regarding the nature of scientific research (see, for example, http://nationalethicsresourcecenter.net/undergrads).
ETHICS OF SCIENCE NOW MATURING: EXPERIENCES SO FAR AND OUTLOOKS AHEAD
There is a common misunderstanding among practising scientists. The misunderstanding is that science is one thing, ethics is another, and that is why those that talk about the ethics of science at best deliver a more fashionable outfit to a body that remains essentially unchanged by the new appearances. At worst, it is the emperor's new cloths!
Engaging with the ethical implications of science
Perhaps the first question that many will ask is ‘Why should we engage with the ethical implications of science?’ It may be argued that as scientists our job in research is to investigate the universe and in teaching, to enable our students to understand current hypotheses and the reasons why they are held. We deal, the argument continues, in data and evidence gained by rigorous experimentation, observation and measurement - the Baconian approach to understanding the world. Ethics, i.e. the attempt to systematise questions of morals, questions of right and wrong, surely lies outside our remit.
Normal Misbehavior: Scientists Talk about the Ethics of Research
Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics: An International Journal, 2006
THOSE CONCERNED WITH PROTECTING the integrity of science generally focus on the serious but rare infractions of falsification, fabrication, and plagiarism (FFP). While the violations of FFP are clear threats to the quality of scientific work and public trust in science, are they the behaviors that researchers themselves find most troubling? Noticing that scientists seldom are asked to report their perceptions of the behaviors that pose problems for the enterprise of science, we conducted six focus groups with researchers from major research universities. A total of 51 scientists participated in our focus-group discussions, which lasted from 1.5 to 2 hours each. We found that while researchers were aware of the problems of FFP, in their eyes misconduct generally is associated with more mundane, everyday problems in the work environment. These more common problems fall into four categories: the meaning of data, the rules of science, life with colleagues, and the pressures of production in science. Focus on the "normal misbehaviors" that are part of the ordinary life of researchers allows us to see the way the organization of science generates both compliance and deviance from ethical norms.
Drawing on 171 in-depth interviews with physicists at universities in the United States and the UK, this study examines the narratives of 48 physicists to explain the concept of ethical ambiguity: the border where legitimate and illegitimate conduct is blurred. Researchers generally assume that scientists agree on what constitutes both egregious and more routine forms of misconduct in science. The results of this study show that scientists perceive many scenarios as ethically gray, rather than black and white. Three orientations to ethical ambiguity are considered-altruism, inconsequential outcomes, and preserving the status quo-that allow possibly questionable behavior to persist unchallenged. Each discursive strategy is rationalized as promoting the collective interest of science rather than addressing what is ethically correct or incorrect. The results of this study suggest that ethics training in science should focus not only on fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism and more routine forms of misconduct, but also on strategies for resolving ethically ambiguous scenarios where appropriate action may not be clear.
2023
This paper discusses issues of scientific ethics, an important aspect to be studied in relation to the many misuses of scientific knowledge that have been proven to have a negative impact on dehumanization and environmental sustainability. Although at first value-free science has contributed tothe rapid development of science, but later when the application of science spread out, both for good purposes and evil purposes. Therefore, the rules of scientific ethics are very important to be considered in determining the object of research and application of science in society. The discussion begins with the paradox of science (between benefits and threats), the question of whether science should be value-bound or value-free, and finally the ethical principles of science.
Science, ethics, and scientific ethics in the modern world
Environmental Geosciences, 1999
Environmental issues have become a concern of American society over the last 25 years. Scientists are responsible for providing impartial information, data, and guidance to the public. However, issues of science have become blurred with issues of public perception, leading decision makers and the public to disregard scientific testimony in the development of public policy. This article traces the early history of the environmental movement and considers elements of a free society in making choices about the future. By using parables and history, it becomes axiomatic that science and scientists must work with the public to balance resource demands with environmental needs for the good of all. Lessons from these parables can be translated into admonitions for scientists to be more forthcoming, to test their work against the needs of society, and to challenge political actions that are not based on good science. Scientists are challenged to be ethical leaders. This article is drawn from the author's presentation at the conference "Meeting Societal Resource and Environmental Requirements into the Twenty-First Century."